OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/8092/PostgreSQL_8_0_will_run_on_Windows
Exploring the Future of Computingen-usCopyright 2001-2015, David Adamsadam+nospam@osnews.comTue, 03 Mar 2015 20:54:57 GMThttp://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gifOSNews.comhttp://www.osnews.com
curioushttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I wonder how the startup and configuration will be implemented. A GUI perhaps? That would simply rock.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsWhy?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Why would you need such a thing on Windows? You've got Access... More wasted effort...Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:05:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsre: Why?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Some cross-platform applications can benefit from this.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsWhy on Windows?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Windows is not used that much on the server anymore. Linux is the big guy on the block when it comes to servers. This absolutely makes no sense to port open Source software to Windows because Microsoft is a closed source company, they cripple third party solutions so that they will not run reliably on Windows. Anyone who runs this on Windows is a fool, anyone that runs Windows as any kind of server is begging to be hacked. how many companies will run this? from what I have seen Open Source enterprises solutions on Windows are not that widely adopted. I know of no company that runs Apache or any of the other Open Source enterprise solutions on Windows. good luck but this is a useless port and an extremely large waste of time.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsre: Why?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Actually, PostgreSQL competes with SQL Server, not Access. You could easily use Access as a front-end to PostgreSQL. But yes, the fact that it is (1) free and (2) cross-platform can make it very attractive for some software developers.

Also, the fact that PostgreSQL is released under a BSD-style license means that it can be incorporated into any software project without worries of GPL-related source code disputes. (In other words, proprietary software shops can benefit from this, and in fact that is encouraged by the BSD developers, so please let's not start any licensing flames here)Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRe: Why?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Why would you need such a thing on Windows? You've got Access... More wasted effort...

That would be like saying why would you need a Boeing 747 when you've already got a Cessna.

Access and PostgreSQL aren't even in the same class of databases. Now if you had said "You've already got SQL Server" you would have made a tad more sense.

Either way, PostgreSQL is powerful and cheap, and more choices never hurt anyone. This could be extremely useful as part of a transition from Windows-to-Linux project. Port your apps and databases over to PostgreSQL first, and then port these apps and databases over to Linux.

Anyway, keep up the great work on this excellent database.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:14:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRe: Why on Windows?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?And why on linux? why would a BSD license like program want to run on the bastion of GPL?Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRe: Why on Windows?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Windows is not used that much on the server anymore.

You'd be surprised how many people use Microsoft products on their servers. Although Linux is the dominant server platform, Windows is very well represented, even within large enterprises. For example, ASP.NET and VisualStudio.NET coupled with IIS and MS SQL Server make a pretty nice development environment for hammering out quick and dirty intranet web applications.

Additionally, there is a lot of legacy code out there that has been written in classic ASP that expects to talk to a SQL Server. To migrate all of this over to Linux would be an extremely difficult and error prone process.

However, if one could slowly replace each piece with a cross platform alternative at a relaxed pace, such a project could be undertaken with relative ease. Replace SQL Server with PostgreSQL, then replace ASP with PHP, then repace IIS with Apache. Now the only thing left is Windows. And the beauty of it is that you don't have to dump your entire server environment at once.

For many people who only have experience with MS Windows, the learning curve for PostgreSQL/Linux/Apache is far, far too steep.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:24:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsYikeshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it's good for PostgreSQL that it can now reach Windows users as well. On the other hand, I see PgSQL as a server app that has no business on Windows (insecurity, instability - you know the drill. It has improved, but at the end of the day it just isn't a server OS, and it shows).

Maintaining a Windows port can take a lot of effort. I'd rather see that effort spent on improving the product, and let Microsoft and its followers deal with the fact that Windows doesn't adhere to standards that have existed since before its time.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:25:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRe: Why?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I am pretty sure you are making a joke, but for anyone who it reading and does not get it:

What he is saying is comparable to "Why would need MS Word when you have Notpad?". The functionality of PostgreSQL 8.0 is way beyond that of access. PostgreSQL 8.0 is a full-fledged database trying to compete with MS SQL Server and Oracle (It is not as good yet, but it is much closer to them than to access). Access is a small database designed for simple custom apps. Whenever you see a horrible vb+excel app (try consulting if you don't know what I mean), you are seeing something that is don't what access was designed for. PostgreSQL and access are aimed for two different markets.

MSDE would be a much better thing to compare PostgreSQL to since it is a crippled version of MS SQL Server. Though it is still doesn't really compare since the crippling (size restrictions, connection restrictions, index restrictions, etc.) prevent MSDE from seeing much serious use.

PostgreSQL fits in very well for mid range database users. For really big stuff you still need something heavy duty like oracle on a 64-processor sun box. But for the majority of users looking for a real database PostgreSQL will work just fine, and let them get away without paying an arm and a leg for Oracle or MS SQL Server.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsI hope some of these comments are jokeshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?It's really concerning to see commments like "Windows is not used that much on the server anymore." Nothing could be further from the truth. Personally, I'm OS-agnostic - I run the right tool for the right job in the right environment. It won't necessarily be Linux, but won't necessarily be Windows, either.
Windows' install base is pretty high, folks. So is Linux's. It makes all the sense in the world to port PostgreSQL to Windows - it opens the product up to a previously untapped - and large - base.
Just out of curiousity, why do people think this kind of stuff when reality says something completely different?Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsre: I hope some of these comments are jokeshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?It's really concerning to see commments like "Windows is not used that much on the server anymore." Nothing could be further from the truth. Personally, I'm OS-agnostic - I run the right tool for the right job in the right environment. It won't necessarily be Linux, but won't necessarily be Windows, either.
Windows' install base is pretty high, folks. So is Linux's. It makes all the sense in the world to port PostgreSQL to Windows - it opens the product up to a previously untapped - and large - base.
Just out of curiousity, why do people think this kind of stuff when reality says something completely different?

I totally agree. I'm not sure why this happens. It's even more odd to me that it is taken seriously by so many.

Having postgresql natively for Windows servers is going to be welcomed by many who currently depend on postgresql. That's a truism to take seriously.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsCrippled?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?>This absolutely makes no sense to port open Source software >to Windows because Microsoft is a closed source company, they >cripple third party solutions so that they will not run >reliably on Windows. Anyone who runs this on Windows is a >fool

I am curious to know what OSS is crippled by windows? We run a fair amount of OSS on windows and we've not detected any reliability issues?Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsPostgreSQL and MySQL can now compete in this spacehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Don't forget that MySQL already runs on the Windows platform. The PostgreSQL developers might not be looking to replace SQL Server or Oracle on Windows. They might just want to offer another free alternative to the Windows platform. I am currently saying "finally PostgreSQL on Windows", now I can ditch MySQL there too!Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:54:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsmmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?whoopty shit... who cares...Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:49:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRe: Anonymoushttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?who cares...

If you'd read the article, I think you'd notice what some other vendors seem to forget - what you can test and use at home directly translates into what you are willing to use at work. How do you think Windows got into the server room to begin with? Just because you won't use PostgreSQL on Windows (or would like us to believe that anyway) doesn't mean it wasn't the number 1 requested feature the PostgreSQL team received for a reason. Plus, the fact that you posted from ipt.aol.com makes it pretty obvious that you're a Windows user yourself. So, what's the problem? Quit the trolling, eh? Ever since the report abuse link has become disabled the signal to noise ration has suffered here.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:58:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentssweethttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?sweet! but i will stick with firebird and give pgsql a year to mature as a windows server system before i think of switching.Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:59:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE:Why on Windows?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Windows is not used that much on the server anymore. Linux is the big guy on the block when it comes to servers. This absolutely makes no sense to port open Source software to Windows because Microsoft is a closed source company, they cripple third party solutions so that they will not run reliably on Windows. Anyone who runs this on Windows is a fool, anyone that runs Windows as any kind of server is begging to be hacked.

You are right, he might be a fool, but he is a more enlightened fool. It is very important that good free software products get ported to windows. That way the dhoise OS becomes irrelevant. And if your choise of OS is irrelevant, why chose one you where you have no possiblities of doing your own modifications and costs money, instead of a one that is free.

how many companies will run this? from what I have seen Open Source enterprises solutions on Windows are not that widely adopted. I know of no company that runs Apache or any of the other Open Source enterprise solutions on Windows. good luck but this is a useless port and an extremely large waste of time.

The interesting thing is not how many companies will run it on windows, but rather how many newbies that will get their first database experience using it. It also help developers to create cross platform solutions.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:00:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRe: Why on Windows?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?@Conga Conga:

Right on! That's what I'm saying!!

PostgreSQL on Windows is a good thing. As mentioned before, it can now compete with MySQL on Windows and it can also be used in proprietary Windows based products that need an embedded database (that's the beauty of the BSD license).

From what I hear a company called Innovus is using embedded PostgreSQL for it's UCCnet solution. I was really impressed to hear that bit of information especially since UCCnet is a big thing for the retail/wholesale industry.

Although, I was confused about that because I didn't think PostgreSQL ran on Windows yet they have a product based on it, right now. Go figure.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:07:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsjoke!http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?"Why would you need such a thing on Windows? You've got Access... More wasted effort..."

He was joking you numbskulls... I work for a very large pharma company and all there servers.. hundreds upon hundreds are Windows. They are not even looking to get rid of them.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Comments@bsd_usrhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?PostgreSQL on Windows is a good thing. As mentioned before, it can now compete with MySQL on Windows and it can also be used in proprietary Windows based products that need an embedded database (that's the beauty of the BSD license).

and i think your wrong with it competing with mysql on windows. its competing with firebird and maybe small setups of ms sql server.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsYes on Windowshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?It's amusing to see so many people commenting against Postgres Windows port. :-)

* Windows is not an important platform. Duh, Windows is an *amazingly* important platform. 90+% of market share/install base for desktops. *Ninety* percent. Sure, Linux may be bigger on the server, but what do developers use for their development work? Desktops (and notebooks).

* Windows is not used much as a server. It has certainly surpassed Solaris (and I bet AIX too).

* There are already other databases on Windows. Yeah, and there are also tons of other databases on Linux. Your point being? Postgres is a very nice database and it's certainly nice too to be able to run it on Windows as well as on Unices.

* Windows is unstable. Have you guys tried anything other than Win95/98/Me? For many many people (including me), Windows (2k,XP,2003) is now stable enough to be a server. Whether it's secure enough might be moer debatable though...

All in all, the Windows port is a Good Thing (TM). It's requested by a lot of users and it's nice to see the Postgres developers catering to their users' needs.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:07:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsone questionhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?anybody can point me out to something ala ms access but open source and free (and runs on the win32 platform)Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:07:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsre: why?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Riggs said. "We are expecting that within a year, half of our user base will run the database on Windows."
...
"The hobby market is an important market," he said. "Home users are also employed and will take their opinions to work--if it's not being used at work, they'll ask why."Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsCoolhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Access? You need to pay plus it has a 2GB limit. I am currently using MySQL but when PG8 is stable on Windows I will migrate to it.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:58:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE: @bsd_usrhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?@Ceaser

1. To fix firmly in a surrounding mass: embed a post in concrete; fossils embedded in shale.
2. To enclose snugly or firmly.
3. To cause to be an integral part of a surrounding whole: "a minor accuracy embedded in a larger untruth" (Ian Jack).
4. Biology. To enclose (a specimen) in a supporting material before sectioning for microscopic examination.

From that definition, if a company (let's take Innovus for example) bundles PostgreSQL "tightly" with it's products, then it can be considered embedded. If what Innovus claims is true (using PostgreSQL with it's UCCnet application - you do know what UCCnet is, right?), then it's already being done.

You might be thinking of embedded as the term used for software running on devices and stuff like that. For instance, an embedded webserver running on a Jetdirect card or something of that nature. Yeah, that can be embedded too because webserver is an integral part of that Jetdirect card. Gotta administer it somehow. Telnet you say? Ah, embedded telnet server.

I guess embedded is too loose of a term. Or maybe the meaning of it has changed for certain applications. I don't know.

I've never tried Firebird myself. I've been tempted to, but I have yet to be pursuaded to spend time with it. I've read about SQLite and it seems neat and simple. Now SQLlite definately seems like a product that can be embedded into a device because of it's size and simplicity.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I had previously stated.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 02:16:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsPostgresql rockshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?why doesn't anyone bring up the other differences that set it apart from from sql server and access (it's beyond me why those products are even being brought up here). Talk about it's table inheritance abilities - talk about pgsql syntax and other language features that are very different than sql server. Talk about it's successfull history and faithful following. Use MSDE if you want a better database (for free) on windows instead of sql server - why would Access (A DESKTOP DATABASE) be relevant at all. Access can be a front end to database servers you know. A windows port is going to nothing but give postgres credibility and a bigger following. It's fast, it's powerful, it free, it's trusted, and it's opensource. it would be nice to see some nice front ends to maintaining it on windows but I'm sure that will come now that it's ON windows.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 02:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE: Conga Conga (IP: ---.telepac.pt)http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I dunno. You BSD hypocrites seem to like building everything with gcc. Nice.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 02:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE:Postgresql rockshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I know what is Access. I want to know if something similar to Access is avaible for win32, as an open source software. I want a good front end engine to a sql server for rapid db developpementSat, 21 Aug 2004 04:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE: Crippled?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I am curious to know what OSS is crippled by windows? We run a fair amount of OSS on windows and we've not detected any reliability issues?

At least none but the usual reliability issues (like staying up, bug infestations, virus spreading) that you get on a POC Windoze box.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:41:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Comments7.5 was already nativehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?ntSat, 21 Aug 2004 08:25:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRe: curioushttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?pgsql8/win32 comes with an installer, that will create a user for you and everything. It installs itself as a windows service. (7.5 did not do that)

It also comes packed with pgadmin III, but I don't like that tool.. but it's better than nothing for most people.

I run production on pgsql for quite some time now, and I've used the cygwin shitty port for development. Since a week or so I've upgraded to 8, no problems so far, except for a boolean querySat, 21 Aug 2004 08:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsPostgreSQL is higher-end than ppl are giving it credit for.http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I don't know why people are talking about PostgreSQL as a lower-end database than SQL server, let alone comparing it with the sorry excuse for a DB that is Access's Jet engine.

I would say the Postgres and SQL server are more or less on a par globally, with Postgres having better transactional abilities (especially its Multi-Versioning feature, where writers don't block readers even in READ-COMMITED mode), and SQL server being somewhat better at analysis, with large queries involving big datasets from many tables.

For your typical transactional business database, I would most likely choose Postgres, unless the requirements are so great to justify something like Oracle.

Postgres also has the advantage that you are not tied to a single OS.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:05:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE: Why on Windows? http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?"Windows is not used that much on the server anymore..."

Man, get a job and wake up.

DavidSat, 21 Aug 2004 12:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsStrategy for linux migrationhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I like free software being ported to Windows. It makes people less addicted to M$ and other proprietary products and it makes a soft transition to linux and other free *nix operating systems.

If people was running OpenOffice, Mozilla, Thunderbird, Postgresql, Firebird, LaTeX, etc there would no justification to not use linux or a *BSD.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE: Strategy for linux migrationhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?If all Linux software was ported to Windows, what would be the point of running Linux for these people? We are slowly removing the advantage of running Linux instead of Windows by porting our high quality software to Windows. A couple "preview" applications of the high quality of OSS applications like Mozilla Firefox are ok, but everything shouldn't be Windows native, as then people will see no point in moving over to Linux if all the OSS is on Windows.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:01:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsThe JDBC-driverhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Anyone know if getGeneratedKeys will work with the JDBC-driver?Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:14:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Comments RE: Strategy for linux migrationhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?The whole point is preventing lock-in. With these ports it takes away the power one company (microsoft) has over a
the majority of the industry. Afterwards if people still chose to purchase their OS, I don't really care, it doesn't threaten my freedom. Besides many will go for the "cheaper" optionSat, 21 Aug 2004 14:16:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsOSS on CSS OShttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Isn't it amusing to see criticism directed at OSS being ported to a CSS-based OS? I though the OSS community was all about choice? Did someone suddenly build a fence to keep out Windows users because their OS happens to be CSS? Doesn't choice apply to them as well? I'm quite sure most OSS advocates support freedom in general, but yet we still see the anti-MS knee-jerk reaction. What is alarming is that it is being extended to the user. Why limit THEIR freedom because you don't like the maker of their OS?Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsPostgres vs. MSSQLhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?I think Postgres is the better solution, now that it has on time rollback and shared table space.
First of all, it is cheaper under the very free BSD licence.
Second, it is pretty much equal speedwise, with MSSQL having the better optimization engine, but Postgres beats MSSQL featurwise in a long term, and has a proven track record of stability and really big databases

(I am speaking about the database backend of the .org top level domain DNS here for instance)

MSSQL has the slightly better admin tools, but with PGAdmin3 the leak is closing rapidly, whereas Postgres now is truly multiplatform.

I think it is a good thing that a native Windows port now is available, the main problem for a wide acceptance of Postgres over Mysql and other inferior solutions was the lack of a decent Windows port, which basically locked a huge part of the hobbyists out, which used Mysql instead.

Great thing.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:13:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsre: Why on Windowshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?To build on what the_trapper suggests as a migration path, it would be better to migrate in this order:

1.ASP scripts to PHP (PHP can be installed on IIS as an ISAPI filter)

2. Change the database from SQL Server to MySQL or Postgres

3. Change the web server from Win/IIS to *nix/Apache

I think a Win32 version of Postgres is great news for PostgreSQL and those developing on open source platforms-- they will finally have a database that supports stored procedures.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Comments@Anonymoishttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?> A couple "preview" applications of the high quality of OSS applications like
> Mozilla Firefox are ok, but everything shouldn't be Windows native,
> as then people will see no point in moving over to
> Linux if all the OSS is on Windows.

I think it's works the opposite way. If all software you use on Windows is available on Linux/*BSD, who in their right minds would want to pay for an operating system (unless MS does something spectacular with the GUI).

On the server side the choice is even easier.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:38:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsPostgreSQL Administration under Windowshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Since I have yet to try it, I was wondering what the administration of PostgreSQL was like under Windows. Is it the same as under Unix?

It don't know if it already exists, but it would be pretty cool if there was a "PostgreSQL Enterprise Mananger" type program like the MS SQL Enterprise Manager. Some sort of snap-in to the MMC would be pretty cool. One that would give you easy administration of the tables, users, groups, security, performance, configuration and everything else. If it doesn't already exit, it would be one neat application for someone much more talented than myself to start.

I tell ya. Hardcore Windows Server users (the ones that don't use and won't use Unix) will want something like this. An application such as this would make them take notice of PostgreSQL. Why? Because typically, they don't care about the technology of the database so as long as it does it's job and is easy to use and administer. These are just the observations I have made working with Windows administrators that just don't get Unix.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:41:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Comments@bsduserhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?As I said, the installer comes with pgadminIII. It's not as nice as enterprise manager, and psql (just like oracle) is cli only.
The ms query analizer and toad are great tools for mssql and oracle.Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsWha? http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?After reading all the comments, I honestly think that quite a few people have no idea what this database really is!

It is by far the most advanced and mature OS database out there. By bringing it to windows it will allow people to test it and develop for it (IE try it out) so some boss somewhere can see how great it is.

Bringing it to windows INSTANTLY gives a free DB that is lightyears ahead of MS SQL Server (I develop for both professionally, just so you know). This is great news for those shops that refuse to move to Linux/BSD/XServe for some stupid reason.

This also means that Postgres can finally compete with MySQL with hobbiest developers. This is great news.

You know what else would be a neat thing. A forms builder for PostgreSQL similar to that of Oracle Forms. That would definately be interesting.

At work we use DB2400 on an iSeries but our H.K. office is using Oracle on Windows (they had problems with Solaris) and developing applications with Oracle Forms. It seems like in the next few years we might be dumping the iSeries (which I think is a bad idea since we do all of our E.D.I., business applications, and our RF terminals is on it for the warehouse) and going the Oracle route. Anyway the point is that I guess pretty soon I'll probably be learning to use Oracle Forms.Sun, 22 Aug 2004 03:18:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsPGAdminII is not TCL/TKhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?You mean pgAccess. PgAdmin3 is written in x using the wxWidgets cross platform library.
It formerly was a Windows only program but was ported to wxWidgets with version 3.Sun, 22 Aug 2004 05:47:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Comments7.5http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?There is *no* 7.5. They have decided to label it 8.0 instead.Sun, 22 Aug 2004 05:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsgreat news...http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?however...

does 8.0 support indexed views? this is a huge selling point.

i've said it before, and i will say it again...formalized support is the #1 selling point for a commercial RDBMS, and i still have yet to see any performance stats (SQL server is by far and away the fastest performer on the Windows platform. see tpc.org for verification).Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:42:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentswish postgesql has windows port 2 yrs agohttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?If they had windows port two years ago or Firebird 1.5 was released 2 years ago then my company could have survived. My company is about to die and mysql bugs, no rdbms support is part of the reason. With MySql you have to put all your buisness logic in your application which makes things very difficult and expensive to maintain.

Wish people had created more noise about Firebird and Postgresql(windows port) in these forums.Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE: wish postgesql has windows port 2 yrs agohttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?If they had windows port two years ago or Firebird 1.5 was released 2 years ago then my company could have survived. My company is about to die and mysql bugs, no rdbms support is part of the reason. With MySql you have to put all your buisness logic in your application which makes things very difficult and expensive to maintain.

This is one of the most moronic comments I've ever read on this site, and as sites go, it's got a pretty high moron quota. So I guess you should be proud of your "achivement". It's truly mind-blowing.

If MySQL sucks so much why the hell were you continuing to use it? Were the MySQL devs holding you at gunpoint forcing to use their abomination? I find it extremely unlikely.Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:46:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsOpenNMS on windows?http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?K.. so who will be the first to try OpenNMS on windows.. without the cygwin stuff.. This would be my only reason atm for support on windows. This would be good for NOC people that are restricted to windows servers.. imhoMon, 23 Aug 2004 01:03:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsGreat for porting apps!http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?This release is vital to an organization I'm developing for. It's a non-profit organization with one single server running Windows, because of the old version of the app running Access. To be able to eventually port to Linux, we had only _one_ option - PostgreSQL. So that means we can still use the old app when developing the new one. And when the new one's taken over, we'll change to Linux - perhaps.

PostgreSQL on Windows is most welcome for us, it actually solves our biggest problem! :-)Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE: great news...http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?There are no indexed views in PostgreSQL. However, there are great articles around the web on how to make something called 'materialized views', which is actually a trigger-based method for making new tables on the basis of a given view.

It works perfectly well, mostly thanks to PostgreSQL's fantastic support for different PL's (procedural languages).

You make a good point though.Mon, 23 Aug 2004 04:19:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE Theorzhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?PostgreSQL 8.0 is a full-fledged database trying to compete with MS SQL Server and Oracle (It is not as good yet, but it is much closer to them than to access).

I don't know about that. I guess it depends on what you are using it for. I use PostgreSQL and MS SQL pretty extensively and I like PostgreSQL better because it is as stable as they come and has more reasonable system requirements.

For my needs, they both support the same stuff, but MSSQL is quite bloated, I think, and I've had some stability issues with Windows/SQL Server that I haven't seen on the BSD/PostgreSQL machines.Mon, 23 Aug 2004 04:26:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsWhy on windows...http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?Because one of the reasons why MySQL is so popular is that it works well on windows.

You have reason to say that windows isn't that used in server space, but, may i point out that most of the developers do their work in windows boxes and tend to have local servers for testing purposes?Mon, 23 Aug 2004 07:11:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)CommentsRE the_trapperhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?"For example, ASP.NET and VisualStudio.NET coupled with IIS and MS SQL Server make a pretty nice development environment for hammering out quick and dirty intranet web applications.

Along with quick and dirty, you forgot slow.

You make a good point though. "

ASP.NET is one of the fastest platforms out of the box for webdevelopment.

do the math besides this the IIS 6 webserver is one of the fastest around.

Don't believe me, do some benchmarks Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:05:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Commentsgood for Postgres, but...http://www.osnews.com/thread?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?MySQL is more popular partialy due to fact that it runs natively on win32. So this is going to be good for Postgres.

But, I don't like to see great software like Sendmail, Postgres, etc. running on win32. People should be penalized
for running windows, and stimulated to abandon microsoft.

That is what microsoft does all the time, they punish people
for not using windows. Ok, let's punish people for using windows this time.

Expanding our audience was one of the reasons for the Win32 port. Currently, of the several thousand downloads of the beta, almost half have been Windows -- some 7000 users who might not ever have touched PostgreSQL before. I expect a lot more when the actual release comes.

The other strong motivating factor for us is our existing community of ISVs. A lot of software vendors these days are committed to being multi-platform, and have not been able to use PostgreSQL with their commercial software because their company mandates support for Windows as well as Linux and OSX. This port means a lot to them.Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous)Comments